Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

  • Tempest in a Blogging Teapot

    A little more than a month ago I wrote an article where I examined the question of the possible evolutionary nature of human religiosity.  Specifically, my question was addressed to why seemingly rational people trained in the rigorous scientific process would turn to religion, spirituality or superstition.

    Within this larger academic question, I cited the case of an ex-student of mine, P.G., a man trained in the sciences who turned to a life of spiritual quest.  P.G. is now a teacher in the yogic tradition with some following.  Having known this person right up to the stage of his life when he decided to follow a new trajectory in his belief system, I decided to use his example to illustrate my puzzlement.  Also, because P.G. is now a public persona with several references to his teachings, philosophy, public appearances etc. easily accessible on the World Wide Web, I felt comfortable in bringing him up.  Had he been a private person, I would not have used his case in my article.

    To my astonishment and considerable annoyance, in the last couple or three weeks, I started receiving e-mails from persons claiming to be associated with P.G. in his current incarnation, in which they raise objections to my public blog post about him. Although one of them claimed hearsay (wrong!), the emails don’t actually challenge my assertions about P.G.’s earlier life. The correspondents are just not happy that I publicly discussed the details of his "pre-monastic" days when I was familiar with him. In their emails, P.G.’s devotees /associates have requested me to "withdraw" my comments without really giving me any solid grounds as to why I should do that except to suggest vaguely that my post has in some way "harmed" P.G. and his spiritual enterprise.

    Since these emails came to me unsolicited with no implicit understanding of confidentiality, without naming names, I will quote from them some relevant lines. One e-mail message contained the following.

    "The postings on the blog have now created much confusion and led to mundane discussion and gossip. The writings about his life after his secondary school until his monkhood are not based on direct information (not coming from Swamiji himself) and they are amounting to slander. Since you wrote that you affectionately remember him as a youth, I hope that you will honour my request to please withdraw your comments and the picture of Swamiji from that posting."

    I read the above message as a veiled attempt at intimidation by a devotee who is unhappy with my narrative perhaps because in some way it contradicts the image of the guru which he/she wants to promote. If the devotees are confused and are indulging in gossip, shouldn’t they ask their spiritual leader to clear up the confusion instead of haranguing me?  And how strong is their faith and conviction that they were shaken by some casual statements of a total stranger?  I decided to ignore this attempt at thought policing and let the matter stand where it is.

    Then I received a rambling email purporting to be from the "legal counsel" of P.G. Interestingly enough, this one makes no reference to slander or asks any questions about the veracity of what I have described in my article. There is however some earnest attempt to "explain" my observations in light of P.G.’s enlightenment and subsequent monkhood.  The main thrust of the message is that my blog post may have "hurt" the guru personally and his relationship with his sponsors.  Again, there is an appeal to remove references to P.G.’s current life and spiritual / business pursuits. I will quote some relevant material here from this email.

    "Apparently you were a good influence on his life, inspiring him to excel in the sciences. …. These personal comments about him have been very hurtful and have created unnecessary confusion and precipitated several inquiries to the charitable non-profit organization that sponsors him.  I am not sure what your motivation was in posting these personal remarks about him on the internet, but I’m sure that you have no interest or reason to criticize, discredit, or ridicule him personally or to damage his reputation.  Even though you may not understand or agree with his spiritual vows and decision to contribute towards society spiritually and culturally rather than materially, out of civility, courtesy, respect for him and your past caring teacher-student relationship with him, again I respectfully request you to remove these unnecessary personal comments about him from the internet." 

    My initial response to the above message was irritation at being again told what I should or should not put in my private blog site which I did not invite any of P.G.’s devotees to read.  However, on further reflection I felt bad about inadvertently exposing P.G. to scrutiny that he did not expect and I myself did not intend. Very reluctantly, I have decided to modify the original post in question without making any changes to the objective content of my article.  P.G.’s story (factual and verifiable) and the ensuing comments still remain in the original post. The modification I have made will essentially "disassociate" the P.G. I knew in the past from his current reincarnation, the Swami.  No one reading the original article will be able to make the connection between P.G., my ex-student and P.G., the Guru.

    Indeed, I had no intention of harming P.G. I suspect that if he has been hurt by my post, it is not because of "slander" but because of some "truth" that was not known to his devotees before my article became available on the internet. My motivation in writing the orginal post on evolutionary pressures and religion was an academic one. I have on several previous occasions alluded to religion  and rationality on the blog which have some times generated spirited and civil discussions.  In this particular post, I decided for the first time to break my own rule of avoiding personal anecdotes involving other people’s lives in order to illustrate a point, even though this person is now a public figure. Also, while I have severe disagreements with P.G.’s philosophy and his chosen path of serving society, I did not write his story in order to compromise him personally or professionally.  My intention in writing it was an attempt to understand the workings of a religious mind;  using P.G.’s  story was incidental. As I have said before, I still recall the young P.G. with affection for his bright and earnest ways.  I realize full well that I am at liberty to state facts and opinions in my blog post about my side of a multi-faceted story. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to take a stand on this matter on the basis of the First Amendment and freedom of speech against P.G’s acolytes.  However, I am not on a crusade against P.G. and the reason for my decision is my own queasiness about P.G. and me.  I have "cleaned" up the blog post in a way that anonymizes the post and does not lead from the P.G. of my past, to P.G., the  publicly known spiritual leader of today.

    As my regular readers know well, I have been writing my candid opinions on political and religious matters for some time on this blog. Never have I seen the depth of emotions (and back room machinations, as Dean points out) that my post on P.G. seems to have stirred up in some. It is baffling that an innocuous and inconsequential blog post would raise so much concern.   I will also note that in their message to me, P.G.’s associates acknowledged that my world view differs from theirs.  Yet, they took it upon themselves to explain to me the details of P.G.’s philosophical and spiritual stance and numerous accolades and accomplishments. There was even an attempt at educating me on the validity of his teachings which reconcile science and the vedic tradition.  It was as if even after knowing my lack of religious convictions, they wanted me to see P.G. as they see him – a godly man. That I wrote about P.G. purely from a human interest angle – as a "person of interest" seems difficult for them to accept.

    As I said in my original article about P.G. and me, "We inhabit different worlds."  But across those worlds, courtesy is an acceptable currency of discourse. But trying to "convert or convince" by preaching is not.  My own readers are not particularly interested in P.G. or his activities. They have moved on from the more than month old post to other matters that interest us here. 

    Only two (and a reluctant third) people have agreed with my decision to "modify" the post.  Others, including perhaps my co-bloggers, may disapprove. They think that P.G.’s religious "thought police" who want only P.G.’s mythology out in the public sphere in the interest of their spiritual / business purposes will benefit from the modification.   Be assured that this was not the reason for my decision.  The modification is not so much for the benefit of P.G.’s own or his adherent’s comfort level but that of my own. I have explained why.  But I welcome you to take me apart in the comments section. :-)   

  • Women’s Choice and Catholics (Joe)

    In Carhart II, on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time since Roe v. Wade upheld an abortion-restrictive law which contained no exception for the health of the mother.  Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion is flatly indefensible; the "analysis" is pathetically dishonest (and maybe also incompetent), and the result is, of course, atrocious.  The possible good news?  In response to the Court’s signaling of its intention to shrink abortion rights in the post-O’Connor era (not to mention the inevitable overturning of the Roe line of cases with the addition of one new conservative Justice), there is a push in Congress to codify women’s choice.

    For analysis and criticism of this decision, see Lyle Denniston here and here, Jill Filipovic here, Marty Lederman  here, Jack Balkin here and here, and even the notoriously conservative and anti-choice Michael Paulsen attacking the Court’s absurd mistreatment of precedent here.

    And then check out Rick Garnett’s post at PrawfsBlawg, in which he expresses disappointment that commentators have suggested that it is more than just coincidence that the five anti-choice votes come from Catholics.  Now, I don’t ordinarily go after the blog posts of law professors–not even unabashed Christofascist Notre Dame professors who may or may not be visiting at Chicago–but seriously, Professor Garnett–Rick–can I call you Rick?–cry me a river you poor, oppressed, white, non-Mormon, Christian, affluent male.  (Incidentally, maybe it’s just because I’m from New England where most Christians are Catholics, or maybe it’s just because I’m not living in the 18th century, but I don’t think that Catholics are singled out in this country by people who will give Christians a pass–it’s a "supernatural thinking" thing, not an "allegiance to this particular branch of supernatural thinking which is no more or less absurd than any nearly identical but differently titled supernatural thinking" thing.)  Garnett writes:

    It is, increasingly, thought to be enough to discredit an argument or position — any argument or position — merely to note that the person who makes it is a religious believer, and to write off any moral argument with which one disagrees as "religious."  (This practice, of course, does not run both ways:  arguments against torture, the death penalty, race discrimination, and income inequality are "secular"; arguments against partial-birth abortion or the creation of embryos for research are "religious.")  It appears, increasingly, that arguments whose trajectory is not in line with the standard liberal / autonomy / choice line are not only rejected, but declared not to be permissible arguments.

    But Rick, arguments against abortion and stem cell research are religious arguments.  The arguments are made in secular terms, but the "baby murderer!" cry is based solidly in supernatural thinking.  Tell me, how many atheists strenuously object to the things to which you object?  I’ll get to the last sentence in the above paragraph later, in the context of a particularly revealing comment.

    Following the jump: "words are meaningless! (when I want them to be)" and more.

    (more…)

  • Medico-Ethical Potpourri (Sujatha)

    On the heels of the US Supreme Court’s decision on upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, it was the first time I actually read the controversial legislation, denounced by pro-choice advocates and hailed by anti-abortion activists ( or, denounced by anti-life activists and hailed by pro-life protesters…err, I give up trying to find the politically correct terms!)

    (more…)

  • Out of the Mouths of Babes (Virtual Exhibition # 4)

    Rp_unaboober3 This time it is not so much about the painting as it is about the story behind it.

    After a visit to a Southwestern art gallery in Tucson, Arizona featuring some fierce looking female nudes, I wanted to paint a similar woman with personality. I visualized a woman who was mature, confident and completely comfortable in her "bare" skin. The result was the accompanying painting roughly made to look like an Indian Gypsy woman. I prepared the canvas to lend an uneven texture which provided a wrinkled look. The aim was to create a figure that would not be too pretty and certainly not simpering. The image posted here is "Photo Shopped" to make it family friendly. The original is anatomically correct.

    My son was in his early teens when I painted this portrait. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber was in the  news, having resurfaced after the Oklahoma City bombing. My son was a very busy and outgoing person in his youth and our home was the meeting place of a large number of his friends who came and went at all hours of the day. The boys would pass my studio niche on their way to the basement game room and often comment on the work in progress on the easel. This particular piece was observed in complete silence by them, all through its creation. A couple of years later I had a small exhibition in a local artists’ co-op gallery. The gallery required me to provide a title for each work on display. I had a hard time naming my paintings, particularly this enigmatic female who doesn’t tell an obvious story. During the days before the exhibition I was in the habit of constantly pestering my family to come up with names for the paintings and this one was a stumbling block for everyone. One day my son blurted out in exasperation, "Why don’t you just call it the Unaboober? All my friends call it that."

    It took several minutes of astonished and hysterical laughter before I fully digested what he had said. Although I did not submit that name to the gallery, the lady on the left has been the Unaboober in my mind ever since and the computer image file of the painting bears the same apt name.   

  • Cheney’s Heart Problem

    We are aware that Dick Cheney suffers from a serious and chronically poor heart condition.  But his cardiac health goes beyond the common medical definition, spilling over into the metaphorical realm of heart disease – "cold hearted" indifference and … well, "heartlessness."

    Since early March, when his "friend" and trusted aide, Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury charges in the Valerie Plame case, the Vice President has not spoken, commisserated with or otherwise contacted Libby!  And why didn’t the VP take a few minutes to at least say "Sorry you are going to the slammer, pal".. or.. " Thanks for being my political cannon fodder?"  Was he too busy, not have access to a phone or was he in an "undisclosed location" for security reasons?  No, he didn’t do it because according to Cheney "There hasn’t been occasion to do so."  !!!!

    Vice President Dick Cheney, asked on CBS’s "Face the Nation" Sunday if he had spoken to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former chief of staff who was convicted in early March of perjury and obstruction of justice, said, "There hasn’t been occasion to do so."

    In response, CBS’s chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said he was "surprised," and repeated his question to the vice president.

    "But as your friend, wouldn’t you even call and express your regrets?" Schieffer asked Cheney. "I mean, I am surprised to hear you say that."

    Cheney responded again, "I just — I haven’t had occasion to do that." When asked if Cheney felt at all responsible for Libby’s demise, the vice president answered, "Bob, I’m simply not going to get into the case. And I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so."

  • Sinclair Lewis: An American Oracle

    Sinclair_lewis It seems odd to write the profile of a long dead author with Current Affairs as one of the tags. By the end of this post you will know why it is entirely appropriate here.

    In my second or third year of college, seeking a break from chemistry text books, I stumbled upon a novel called Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis in the dusty stacks of the English Lit section of the school library. I had never heard of the book nor the author and must confess that I picked it up solely for the unusual sounding title. The book proved to be very interesting. I had never read anything like that before about America written by an American. In a laconic, peaceful and polite manner, Lewis methodically devastated two iconic pillars of American society – middle class consumerism and small business.  It was a stunning, if not a stirring eye opener. My thought was "Was the guy a communist?" He wasn’t, I found out later.  In fact, Lewis was the quintessential middle class, liberal, educated American who was viscerally opposed to all forms of oppressive orthodoxy whether it issued from the left or the right of the political spectrum. He didn’t seek his heroes or philosophy from outside America. He has been called a "satirist" and a "realist." But I suspect that at heart, Lewis was a romantic. He was focused on America which he wished to see become the symbol of fairness and decency.

    After Babbitt, I looked for more volumes by Lewis but my college library had no other book by the author. I didn’t think about Lewis for a long time and later once again, I found him in a library, this time in the excellent public library system of Omaha, Nebraska. I quickly read three more of his books and  watched the movie adaptation of another. Two of the books, Main Street and It Can’t Happen Here were satires in the same free swinging vein of Babbitt, written not with bitterness or anger but with pessimistic resignation, humor and both microscopic and telescopic insights. The third, Arrowsmith is a departure from the style – a gentle tribute to a country doctor and his dedication to humane scientific research (Lewis was the son and grandson of doctors, born in Sauk Center, Minnesota).  In Main Street, Lewis’ target was small town America – its genteel stuffiness, reverse snobbery of anti-intellectualism and close minded prejudices lurking behind the outwardly calm and order. Elmer Gantry (I saw the movie, haven’t read the book) was another withering satire which caused an uproar among the clergy and pious churchgoers by exposing the hypocrisy and lechery of a charlatan preacher. (Burt Lancaster was fantastic in the movie version.)

    I am currently in the middle of an anthology of short stories by Lewis and this post was inspired by my thoughts straying once again to his literary legacy. The real reason I am writing about Sinclair Lewis today is the novel he wrote many years after Main Street, Babbitt and Arrowsmith. It Can’t Happen Here was published in 1935  when America was in the painful throes of the Great Depression and the gathering storm of fascism brewing in Italy, Germany and Spain was not on the mind of the average American.

    (more…)

  • A New Design

    Inspired by Shunya, I took the bold step to change the look of Accidental Blogger to a custom design after using one of Typepad’s pre-set templates for nearly a year and a half (to which I had become quite sentimentally attached, I must confess).  The main motivation was to increase the font size for easier reading. The new look is quite Spartan but provides a better focus on the posts.  Everything else remains the same as before. Please let me know how you like the new uncluttered theme. So far, only my husband has weighed in. He likes it.

  • “You f****** immigrant, go back to your f****** country before I kill you!”

    We are currently in an endless loop of outrage over racially charged stories in the MSM -the flap over Don Imus’ nasty crack about the Rutgers women’s basketball team and the more chilling Duke Lacrosse team’s case involving false accusations of rape. Here is a relatively obscure incident  involving blatant racism mixed with patriotic fervor and police brutality which has so far not been reported in the major media. (via Gene Expression).

    Sikhs are not Arabs although technically an Arab could become a Sikh since Sikhism is a religion, not a race. The overwhelming number of Sikhs are in fact from the northern region of India. If this story is true, the pertinent question to ask however, is what does an immigrant have to do for America … including serve in its wars, to not to have to hear, "Go back to your f*****g country?"

    On Friday March 30, 2007 at around 3:00pm, Mr. Kuldip Singh Nag, a Sikh American who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in the U.S. Navy during the first Gulf War, was at his home in Joliet, IL when a local police officer noticed that a van parked on Mr. Nag’s private property had expired registration tags. Upon being confronted with this, Mr. Nag’s wife, Vera Kaur Nag, informed the officer that the van is parked on their driveway and was inoperable.

    Mr. Nag then came outside to answer the officer’s questions regarding the van. The Joliet police officer then demanded that Mr. Nag park the van inside his garage and not on the driveway, to which Mr. Nag responded to the officer that it was not possible and that regardless, the van is parked on his private property and he has a right to park it on his driveway.

    At this moment, the officer pulled out his pepper spray and attacked Mr. Nag. As Mr. Nag screamed in agony, the officer removed his baton and violently struck Mr. Nag numerous times until he fell to the ground. While the assault ensued, the officer was reported by both Mr. and Mrs. Nag as saying, “You f****** Arab! You f****** immigrant, go back to your f****** country before I kill you!”

    Mr. Nag’s wife and six year-old child both witnessed the violent assault, which resulted in Mr. Nag immediately being admitted to the hospital where he stayed for five days due to complaints of intense pain and head trauma. Mr. Nag also received numerous bruises and a serious head injury which have caused him to go blind for several minutes at a time.

    Note: So far the only sources of this story seem to be SALDEF (The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund) and south Asian bloggers who have used the SALDEF link as their referene. I will wait and see what else emerges, what the investigation will reveal and if it will be reported more widely in Chicago area papers and other media outlets. 

  • A Vicious Conspiracy or A Bumbling Bureaucracy?

    Not being a regular reader of legal blogs, this story came to my attention a few days late (via Sujatha).

    A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush’s executive overreach was recently told that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration’s terrorist watch list. He shared his experience this weekend at the law blog Balkinization.

    Walter F. Murphy, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Emeritus, at Princeton University, attempted to check his luggage at the curbside in Albuquerque before boarding a plane to Newark, New Jersey. Murphy was told he could not use the service.

    "I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.

    When inquiring with a clerk why he was on the list, Murphy was asked if he had participated in any peace marches. "We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," a clerk said.

    Murphy then explained that he had not marched, but had "in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution."

    The clerk responded, "That’ll do it."

    The law blogs are all over this story. Speculations range from whether Professor Murphy is indeed on the No Fly list for his criticism of the Bush administration or whether some other bureaucratic considerations went into deciding his flying status. Some have expressed veiled skepticism of Murphy’s version of the incident  and others have questioned how much an airlines clerk actually knows about the Byzantine calculations that go into the FBI’s decision to put such restrictions on an individual. The Bush administration’s mean hearted and vindictive attitude against real and perceived enemies are by now common knowledge. There is hardly any lie, character assassination or deception that the Bushies will not stoop to in order to thwart a critic. What is also well known is that their bark is quite a bit more vicious than the promised bite. Numerous illegal and unconstitutional schemes hatched by Bush-Cheney-Rove have come to light in the last few years but it is clear that they don’t always carry out their vengeful acts with much precision and care. More Keystone Kops with the blood thirst of Attila the Hun.  My co-bloggers and I have been exchanging our own thoughts on this matter behind the scene via e-mail.  I will reproduce their opinions here sequentially to show what we at A.B. think about Professor Murphy’s flight plight.

    Dean: Lovely.  I’m not sure what’s more disturbing:  the revival of sedition as a feeble excuse for monitoring and control, or the more banal bureaucratic blandness of the "clerk’s" purported responses to Murphy:  "That’ll do it."  Really?

    Anyway, the guy supported Alito.  A little corruption, as Richard Sennett pointed out decades ago, isn’t perhaps such a bad thing, eh?

    Joe: I don’t know that I really buy it; I think that Jack Balkin’s reaction, as usual, makes a lot of sense to me.  Whether he was in fact added to a terrorist watch list, it seems unlikely that an airline clerk would be able to give a reliable account of why that is the case.  It’s all over the legal blogosphere–Solove has a good post up at Concurring Opinions.  It seems to me that bureaucratic incompetence is a more likely cause, even given the Bush Administration’s horrific record on, well, everything; and that the biggest problem is the lack of transparency and the lack of a procedure for getting one’s name removed if one is wrongfully on such a list.

    But I do like Dean’s point about supporting Alito!  Karma, gotta love it.

    Dean: Thanks, Joe, for these links to Balkinization and CO, where good points are made, but also where discussion eventually descends into nanny-nanny sophistry.  Balkin anticipates this trajectory when he begins his remarks with a hyper-academic positing of a gratuitous burden of proof:  "I have no reason to believe that Professor Murphy has not accurately reported what airport personnel told him…"  Of course, he has plenty of reasons to "believe" (or at least suspect) such might be the case:  the information has been passed along via a blog (his own, I realize) from an intermediate source, he is hearing only one telling of the story, and it’s a lulu of a story, for starters.  The Solove/Kerr debate at CO is remarkable, though, with Kerr defensively insisting he hasn’t missed a "larger issue."  But he has, and so perhaps has Solove, whose remarks are otherwise sensible, if verbose. 

    The larger issue is, as you suggest, Joe, that this is very likely stupid bureaucracy manifesting itself on the front line, and…here’s the crux of the issue:  this would be the case even outside a context of heightened security!  Solove suggests that the security measures themselves account for the ineptitude, but I’m more inclined to believe that, at most, they merely compound it.  This is why I qualified bureaucracy as "banal" in my first response.

    I’m pleased, though, that we are, pace Tim O’Reilly, conducting a very civil discussion here, albeit one outside a public forum. (Well, now you are doing it inside it, Dean).

    Sujatha weighed in with her own suspicions.  She wondered if the original NO FLY list may have been compiled with the help of the MIA, the British spy agency. Could Professor Murphy have been confused with an IRA terrorist on the list?

    Anything is possible but we’ll never know . Unless Congress starts cleaning house thoroughly, we will continue to pay a price with our civil rights, peace of mind and simple dignity long after this administration is gone because of the dirty little legacy of suspicion, vindictiveness and impetuous illegalities that it would leave behind in its wake.   

     

  • Book review: The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai (Sujatha)

    Kiran Desai had won the Man Booker prize for her novel The Inheritance of Loss well before I got in the queue for the book at my local library. I was impressed by her achievement (another Arundhati Roy in the making, perhaps). Most of the other Booker prize winners were among my favorites, so my expectations of this book were fairly high.

    (more…)

  • Plug It In, Blow It Up?

    A curious story (link: Sujatha) from the automotive section of Detroit News Online.

    Bush_hydrogen_car Plug it in, fire it up, Mr. President

    The Detroit News 

    Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

    Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford’s hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.

    "I just thought, ‘Oh my goodness!’ So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?"

    This story can be the source of endless cruel jokes for comedians and Bush haters. But my question has less to do with what might have befallen Bush and Cheney and more with "what is Ford thinking?"  Has Ford built a hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid car in whose hydrogen tank you can mistakenly plug in an electric chord with lethal results?  I mean, fuel efficiency, reduced carbon emission and energy savings are well and good but safety of operation has to be the prime consideration. Or is it that with its already pitiful record of vehicle safety, Ford doesn’t care very much about exploding cars?  After all, the iconic Ford CEO Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, "Safety doesn’t sell." I hope Ralph Nader is paying attention.